 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| California School Employees Assn. v. Livingston Union School Dist., F049582,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A school district's policy, which required an employee to request a hearing within five days after service of a disciplinary notice, violated the Due Process Clause because it ignored the fact that employees would be away from employment for months at a time and thus did not provide opportunity to timely request a hearing under Ed. Code, § 45113.
|
|||||
| Pacific Business Connections, Inc. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., B188714,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer had the right to rely upon Ins. Code, § 673, and follow a premium financing company's directive to cancel an insurance policy after the insured defaulted on its loan obligation, the insurer was entitled to summary judgment in the insured's action for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
|
|||||
| People v. Kaplan, G035385,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal defendant was entitled to a second competency hearing under the Due Process Clause and Pen. Code, § 1367, because substantial evidence showed a substantial change of circumstances from the first hearing. Specifically, defendant's mental condition and ability to reason when discussing trial issues had declined from a change in medications.
|
|||||
| People v. Salcido, F050116,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the evidence showed that defendant, charged under Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a), with active participation in a criminal street gang, was a direct perpetrator of gang-related crimes, it was not error to modify CALCRIM No. 1400 to omit the portion of the instruction regarding aiding and abetting criminal conduct by other gang members.
|
|||||
| Fiorentino v. City of Fresno, F050578,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of property owners' petition for a writ of mandate that would have required a city to enforce the California Environmental Quality Act was proper, where the owners did not file a request for hearing within 90 days of filing their petition, as required by Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.4, subd. (a).
|
|||||
| Imagistics Internat., Inc. v. Department of General Services, C051385,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1408, did not grant protest coordinator discretion to accept unsuccessful bidder's protest of the award of a public contract, where unsuccessful bidder, in filing its statement of protest a few minutes before the filing deadline, failed to include a check for the filing fee and a deposit for estimated arbitration costs.
|
|||||
| Jacob B. v. County of Shasta, S142496,
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Litigation privilege of Civ. Code, § 47, subd. (b), applied to a claim against a county for invasion of the constitutional right of privacy, which arose from a letter written by employees of a victim witness program; the letter, which described a child molestation claim, was privileged because it was presented to a court in a family law proceeding.
|
|||||
| State of California ex rel. Metz v. CCC Information Services, Inc., B188720,
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, April 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's qui tam action on behalf of the State, alleging that company violated Ins. Code § 1871.7, by making false or misleading statements, was time barred by § 1871.7s limitations period because insured had inquiry notice more than three years before he filed complaint against company; his conspiracy claims did not toll running of the statute.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
